Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Happened to watch Brexit: What Next? the other day. The blurb says:
"The negotiations have begun over the UK's departure from the European Union. What is the future now that Theresa May's election gamble failed to deliver the clear mandate she wanted for her Brexit talks with the EU? The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler and economics editor Kamal Ahmed speak to major players on both sides of the table and those who voted to leave and remain in 2016."
It couldn't have been more anti-brexit if it tried. Not a hint of balance in any of the topics they discussed despite apparently talking to major players on both sides.
"The negotiations have begun over the UK's departure from the European Union. What is the future now that Theresa May's election gamble failed to deliver the clear mandate she wanted for her Brexit talks with the EU? The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler and economics editor Kamal Ahmed speak to major players on both sides of the table and those who voted to leave and remain in 2016."
It couldn't have been more anti-brexit if it tried. Not a hint of balance in any of the topics they discussed despite apparently talking to major players on both sides.
WindyCommon said:
The BBC website has today a headline stating "More Britons 'back higher taxes'".
If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
I am normally a critic of the BBC, but actually think that this mornings coverage on this on Today was balanced. If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
They asked why the question was not "Would you be willing to pay more taxes?", the survey chap said that whilst the proportion supporting more taxes had risen, it was still well below historic highs, and they also had the IFS on saying that there is no way taxing the rich would pay for substantial public spending increases and that it would need to be a basic rate rise or VAT rise.
loafer123 said:
WindyCommon said:
The BBC website has today a headline stating "More Britons 'back higher taxes'".
If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
I am normally a critic of the BBC, but actually think that this mornings coverage on this on Today was balanced. If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
They asked why the question was not "Would you be willing to pay more taxes?", the survey chap said that whilst the proportion supporting more taxes had risen, it was still well below historic highs, and they also had the IFS on saying that there is no way taxing the rich would pay for substantial public spending increases and that it would need to be a basic rate rise or VAT rise.
The point on historic highs is interesting as it means that "Fewer Britons 'back higher taxes'" would have been an equally valid headline...!
BBC Radio was interviewing Tebbit this morning.
Tebbit read out some quotes from Corbyn lauding the IRA.
The lady interviewer sneered, "You're reading that from the Daily Mail aren't you."
And then she talked over him as he tried to say the quotes are a matter of formal record everywhere.
I don't think it is possible to find a more egregious example of crass insensitivity and extreme bias in the same instance.
Well done BBC, a new nadir.
Tebbit read out some quotes from Corbyn lauding the IRA.
The lady interviewer sneered, "You're reading that from the Daily Mail aren't you."
And then she talked over him as he tried to say the quotes are a matter of formal record everywhere.
I don't think it is possible to find a more egregious example of crass insensitivity and extreme bias in the same instance.
Well done BBC, a new nadir.
Mr GrimNasty said:
BBC Radio was interviewing Tebbit this morning.
Tebbit read out some quotes from Corbyn lauding the IRA.
The lady interviewer sneered, "You're reading that from the Daily Mail aren't you."
And then she talked over him as he tried to say the quotes are a matter of formal record everywhere.
I don't think it is possible to find a more egregious example of crass insensitivity and extreme bias in the same instance.
Well done BBC, a new nadir.
That sounds a bit much even for the worst of the BBC, when & what station? I can't beleive that was actually said by a beeb employee - maybe it was another guest? Tebbit read out some quotes from Corbyn lauding the IRA.
The lady interviewer sneered, "You're reading that from the Daily Mail aren't you."
And then she talked over him as he tried to say the quotes are a matter of formal record everywhere.
I don't think it is possible to find a more egregious example of crass insensitivity and extreme bias in the same instance.
Well done BBC, a new nadir.
An employee would know his wife was paralysed by the IRA bomb and that the labour left made comments like 'try getting on your bike now Norman' in the immediate aftermath - I'm not a fan of the BBC impartiality (or lack of) in general but I can't see them saying that
I thought I'd happened across a statement by one of Corbyn's anti austerity mouthpieces on R4's Today earlier.
Imagine my surprise to find it was Norman Smith (ass political editor).
Balanced item as ever. Not.
I see that the BBC along with the other former "anti Corbynites" from the left know which side their bread is buttered.
How quickly they have come to terms with his leadership now he seems popular.
Imagine my surprise to find it was Norman Smith (ass political editor).
Balanced item as ever. Not.
I see that the BBC along with the other former "anti Corbynites" from the left know which side their bread is buttered.
How quickly they have come to terms with his leadership now he seems popular.
Stickyfinger said:
BBC News Watch.....Newsnight editor.....
Totally dismissive of ANY complaint.....these people are totally self centred and totally unaware.
Have to agree, is not the problem the world/bubble they exist in ,that's what they truly believe, meeting people who have the same liberal views and predominantly anti Brexit it would all appear normal.Totally dismissive of ANY complaint.....these people are totally self centred and totally unaware.
loafer123 said:
WindyCommon said:
The BBC website has today a headline stating "More Britons 'back higher taxes'".
If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
I am normally a critic of the BBC, but actually think that this mornings coverage on this on Today was balanced. If you read the article you will learn that the number of Britons seeking higher taxes has increased from the last time the question was asked; NOT that a majority of Britons seek higher taxes.
This is an egregious example of sophistry through misdirection. Readers are carefully pointed to an incorrect conclusion in the manner of "a piano for the lady with the wooden legs".
They asked why the question was not "Would you be willing to pay more taxes?", the survey chap said that whilst the proportion supporting more taxes had risen, it was still well below historic highs, and they also had the IFS on saying that there is no way taxing the rich would pay for substantial public spending increases and that it would need to be a basic rate rise or VAT rise.
A juicy headline will catch the eye and has an immediate impact, then site visitors move on and many will never get further than that.
BIANCO said:
There was thousands at the Manchester protest.
Well a quick Google and things like the Manchester Evening news suggest a few hundred but of course I've no idea how accurate that is.As the the protest in London today, has anyone been arrested?
I can see how you may think one story has been given more prominence than the other and that's probably fair as a regional march by the EDL probably isn't "national" news in the way a march on Parliament is, it's just how it is, but I really wouldn't say either article seemed biased.
It struck an odd chord that the correspondent reporting from the anti democracy protest in London read out the slogans on a number of placards.
That was superfluous for a short report about a protest. Except of course it's a viewpoint surreptitiously supported by the BBC so overegging content serves their purpose.
They are doing it much more frequently since the election.
It must frustrate the BBC editors & presenters that they can't express their real views openly as they'd like as much as it frustrates those who can see it for what it is & can do nothing to arrest it.
Still, the "tolerant" left will pitch up in a minute & insist "it's all in your head you faclscist loon"
That was superfluous for a short report about a protest. Except of course it's a viewpoint surreptitiously supported by the BBC so overegging content serves their purpose.
They are doing it much more frequently since the election.
It must frustrate the BBC editors & presenters that they can't express their real views openly as they'd like as much as it frustrates those who can see it for what it is & can do nothing to arrest it.
Still, the "tolerant" left will pitch up in a minute & insist "it's all in your head you faclscist loon"
Smiler. said:
It struck an odd chord that the correspondent reporting from the anti democracy protest in London read out the slogans on a number of placards.
That was superfluous for a short report about a protest. Except of course it's a viewpoint surreptitiously supported by the BBC so overegging content serves their purpose.
They are doing it much more frequently since the election.
It must frustrate the BBC editors & presenters that they can't express their real views openly as they'd like as much as it frustrates those who can see it for what it is & can do nothing to arrest it.
Still, the "tolerant" left will pitch up in a minute & insist "it's all in your head you faclscist loon"
"the anti democracy march". : No bias there then That was superfluous for a short report about a protest. Except of course it's a viewpoint surreptitiously supported by the BBC so overegging content serves their purpose.
They are doing it much more frequently since the election.
It must frustrate the BBC editors & presenters that they can't express their real views openly as they'd like as much as it frustrates those who can see it for what it is & can do nothing to arrest it.
Still, the "tolerant" left will pitch up in a minute & insist "it's all in your head you faclscist loon"
Lance Catamaran said:
gooner1 said:
"the anti democracy march". : No bias there then
What's democratic about calling for the removal of the party who received the most votes and seats in an election?Stickyfinger said:
Lance Catamaran said:
gooner1 said:
"the anti democracy march". : No bias there then
What's democratic about calling for the removal of the party who received the most votes and seats in an election?Strange one this morning on R4 Today prog - a piece about a new report calling out KSA on it's backing of fundamentalism, but presaging this with "from the Henry Jackson Society - a right of centre think tank".
What bearing - if any - does any leaning of the report publisher in a UK context have on Islamic fundemntalism? Weird.
Whilst I think about it, when they (excitedly) read out the latest PR from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth they don't tell us of their leanings...
As you were.
What bearing - if any - does any leaning of the report publisher in a UK context have on Islamic fundemntalism? Weird.
Whilst I think about it, when they (excitedly) read out the latest PR from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth they don't tell us of their leanings...
As you were.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff